Get hardware by serial

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the 'GET' verb merely corroborates what is known. The description discloses nothing extra such as exact-match vs partial-match behavior, what happens on a serial not found, whether soft-deleted assets appear by default, or any auth/rate-limit context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single line is short but that is under-specification rather than conciseness; there is no front-loaded statement of purpose, and the endpoint string is the least useful way to phrase it for an agent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, two parameters, and 130+ sibling tools in this server, the description should say what a hit returns (single asset object vs list), how uniqueness/not-found is handled, and how it differs from by_id/by_tag lookups. None of that is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50% and the description adds nothing: 'serial' is undocumented in both places (format, case sensitivity, exact vs fuzzy match) and the '{serial}' placeholder merely repeats the name. The 'deleted' flag's meaning is carried by the schema alone, which the description does not reinforce.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is the raw endpoint string "GET /hardware/byserial/{serial}", which essentially restates the tool name and title rather than stating what the tool does in agent-facing terms. It does convey a read operation keyed on serial, but adds no explanation of what a 'hardware' record is or what is returned.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to prefer this over the many close siblings (snipeit_get_hardware_by_id, snipeit_get_hardware_by_tag, snipeit_search_hardware, snipeit_list_hardware). The endpoint path implies 'exact serial lookup' but never states it, and there are no exclusion or fallback rules.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.